This document outlines 15 proposed "fixes" to improve grading practices so that grades are consistent, accurate, meaningful, and supportive of learning. The fixes address issues such as including non-achievement factors in grades, late penalties, missing or incomplete evidence, group work, assessment quality, and student involvement. Each fix is presented individually along with suggestions to consider its potential benefits and drawbacks. The goal of the fixes is to base grades primarily on evidence of individual student achievement and performance standards, rather than behaviors, attendance, or comparisons to other students through number crunching alone.

1. © Ken O’Connor, 2004
1
Which Fixes Work for You?
Presented by
Ken O’Connor
Assess for Success Consulting
kenoc@aol.com
416 267 4234

2. © Ken O’Connor, 2004
2
• consistent
• accurate
• meaningful, and
• supportive of learning?
The Essential Question(s)
How confident are you that the grades
students get in your school are:

3. © Ken O’Connor, 2004
3
“The grading box is alive and well,
and in some schools and classrooms,
it is impenetrable. Fair does not
mean equal; yet, when it comes to
grading, we insist that it does.”
Patterson, William “Breaking Out of Our Boxes,” Kappan, April 2003, 572

4. © Ken O’Connor, 2004
4
“Those who experience . . . success gain the
confidence needed to risk trying. . .
Students who experience failure lose confidence in
themselves, stop trying, and . . . fail even more
frequently.
As it turns out, confidence is the key to student
success in all learning situations.”
Stiggins, R., Student-Involved Classroom Assessment,
Merrill Prentice Hall, 2001, 43

5. © Ken O’Connor, 2004
5
“the primary purpose of . . grades . . . (is) to
communicate student achievement
to students, parents, school administrators,
post-secondary institutions and employers.”
Bailey, J. and McTighe, J., “Reporting Achievement at the Secondary
School Level: What and How?”, in Thomas R. Guskey, (Ed.)
Communicating Student Learning: ASCD Yearbook 1996,
ASCD, Alexandria, VA, 1996, 120

6. © Ken O’Connor, 2004
6
Professional Judgment
“decisions made by educators, in light of
experience, and with reference to shared
public standards and established policies
and guidelines.”
(Cooper)

7. © Ken O’Connor, 2004
7
Grades are broken when they -
• include ingredients that distort achievement
• arise from low quality or poorly organized evidence
• are derived from inappropriate number crunching,
and when they
• do not support the learning process.

8. © Ken O’Connor, 2004
8
Fixes for ingredients that distort achievement
1. Don’t include student behaviors (effort, participation,
adherence to class rules, etc) in grades; include only
achievement.
2. Don’t reduce marks on “work” submitted late;
provide support for the learner.
3. Don’t give points for extra credit or use bonus points;
seek only evidence that more work has resulted in a
higher level of achievement.
4. Don’t punish academic dishonesty with reduced grades;
apply other consequences and reassess to determine
actual level of achievement.
5. Don’t consider attendance in grade determination;
report absences separately.
6. Don’t include group scores in grades; use only
individual achievement evidence.

9. © Ken O’Connor, 2004
9
Fixes for low quality or poorly organized evidence
7. Don’t organize information in grading records by
assessment methods or simply summarize into a single
grade; organize and report evidence by standards/
learning goals.
8. Don’t assign grades using inappropriate or unclear
performance standards; provide clear descriptions of
achievement expectations.
9. Don’t assign grades based on student’s achievement
compared to other students; compare each student’s
performance to preset standards.
10. Don’t rely on evidence from assessments that fail to
meet standards of quality; rely only on quality
assessments.

10. © Ken O’Connor, 2004
10
Fixes for inappropriate number
crunching
11. Don’t rely only on the mean; consider
other measures of central tendency and
use professional judgment.
12. Don’t include zeros in grade
determination when evidence is missing or
as punishment; use alternatives, such as
reassessing to determine real achievement
or use “I” for Incomplete or Insufficient
Evidence.

11. © Ken O’Connor, 2004
11
Fixes to support the learning process
13. Don’t use information from formative
assessments and practice to determine grades; use
only summative evidence.
14. Don’t summarize evidence accumulated over
time when learning is developmental and will grow
with time and repeated opportunities; in those
instances, emphasize more recent achievement.
15. Don’t leave students out of the grading process.
Involve students; they can - and should - play key
roles in assessment and grading that promote
achievement.

12. © Ken O’Connor, 2004
12
For each Fix
•What do you think? - PMI
• Where are you/school/district now?
• Where do you want to go -
you/school /district?

13. © Ken O’Connor, 2004
13
#1
Don’t include student behaviors
(effort, participation, adherence to
class rules, etc) in grades; include
only achievement.

14. © Ken O’Connor, 2004
14
#2
Don’t reduce marks on ‘work’
submitted late; provide support
for the learner.

15. © Ken O’Connor, 2004
15
Fix #3
Don’t give points for extra credit or
use bonus points; seek only evidence
that more work has resulted in a
higher level of achievement.

16. © Ken O’Connor, 2004
16
Fix #4
Don’t punish academic dishonesty
with reduced grades; apply other
consequences and reassess to
determine actual level of
achievement.

17. © Ken O’Connor, 2004
17
Fix #5
Don’t consider attendance in grade
determination; report absences
separately.

18. © Ken O’Connor, 2004
18
#6
Don’t include group scores in grades;
use only individual achievement
evidence.

19. © Ken O’Connor, 2004
19
Fix #7
Don’t organize information in
grading records by assessment
methods or simply summarize into a
single grade; organize and report
evidence by standards/learning
goals.

20. © Ken O’Connor, 2004
20
Fix #8
Don’t assign grades using
inappropriate or unclear performance
standards; provide clear descriptions
of achievement expectations.

21. © Ken O’Connor, 2004
21
Fix #9
Don’t assign grades based on student’s
achievement compared to other
students; compare each student’s
performance to preset standards.

22. © Ken O’Connor, 2004
22
Fix #10
Don’t rely on evidence from
assessments that fail to meet standards
of quality; rely only on quality
assessments.

23. © Ken O’Connor, 2004
23
Fix # 11
Don’t rely on the mean; consider other
measures of central tendency and use
professional judgment.

24. © Ken O’Connor, 2004
24
Fix #12
Don’t include zeros in grade
determination when evidence is
missing or as punishment; use
alternatives, such as reassessing to
determine real level of achievement
or use “I” for Incomplete or
Insufficient evidence.

25. © Ken O’Connor, 2004
25
#13
Don’t use information from formative
assessments and practice to determine
grades; use only summative evidence.

26. © Ken O’Connor, 2004
26
Fix #14
Don’t summarize evidence accumulated
over time when learning is
developmental and will grow with time
and repeated opportunities; in those
instances emphasize more recent
achievement.

27. © Ken O’Connor, 2004
27
Fix #15
Don’t leave students out of the
grading process. Involve students;
they can - and should - play key roles
in assessment and grading that
promote achievement.

28. © Ken O’Connor, 2004
28
Grades
should come from
body + performance + guidelines
of standards
evidence
i.e., professional judgment
NOT
just number crunching
a

29. © Ken O’Connor, 2004
29
For grades that are:
Consistent fix 8
Accurate fixes 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 10
11 12 14
Meaningful fix 7
Supportive of learning fixes 13 14 15